I think it speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology, but to be fair, the proposal is not to grant the power to disable the Internet.
The proposal is to grant the power to partition the Internet. So, it would not be analogous to how Egypt disabled the Internet almost entirely within their borders. Depending on how you look at it, it's either a subtle distinction, or a huge difference. It still serves the exact same purpose (granting the power to shut down "troublesome" communication channels even if they are physically located outside the country). On the other hand, its activation would not in and of itself impact the vast majority of American citizens (because they only use U.S.-based sites).
Except that if you can partition it you can also take it down. Even if the world "kill switch" doesn't express their intent, it will still effectively be one.
Would you say that the Internet is "destroyed" whenever there's an earthquake or something that cuts trans-Atlantic cables? Would you say that it's "destroyed" by China's filtering?
The proposal is to grant the power to partition the Internet. So, it would not be analogous to how Egypt disabled the Internet almost entirely within their borders. Depending on how you look at it, it's either a subtle distinction, or a huge difference. It still serves the exact same purpose (granting the power to shut down "troublesome" communication channels even if they are physically located outside the country). On the other hand, its activation would not in and of itself impact the vast majority of American citizens (because they only use U.S.-based sites).